Ralph wrote: > > I haven't checked yet, but I assume it violates the RFCs. > > It does by my reading of > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2045#section-5.1
Agreed. > Something for mhfixmsg(1) to correct? At this point, I think the trade-off favors manually fixing the apparently rare offending messages rather than investing effort in enhancing mhfixmsg. David
